Talk:Koevoet

Revert of User:Suidafrikaan edits

I have revert the large edits (in many edits, all without edit summaries), because they were done without explanation and in some cases seem biased. Since this seems to be a prickly topic, I suggest we discuss these changed here in steps.

1. Why was counter-insurgency removed? This group was established specifically in response to increased insurgent activity. This is a technical term without political connotation (existed long before US invasion of Iraq) and simply classifies group as a government institution deployed against anti-government groups that infiltrate from outside a country border, which is indisputably the case here. The term does not confer or imply a good/bad judgement on either side.
2. Why was "performance"(?) of Koevoet removed. These facts are not to glamorize them, or the apartheid goverment. It is an important fact of notability and demonstrates the influence (good or bad) or importance of the group which in turn explains their importance during later negotiations.
3. white colonial governments? The previous term (governments that had arisen from colonial powers) was specifically as neutral as possible, because these governments weren't specifically or exclusively "white". The term "white" adds an unnecessary racial aspect, that almost makes it sounds as though the objection was against the race of the government. If an adjective is really required for colonial governments", a more neutral (and accurate) options would be either "European" or simply "foreign", although the latter seems somewhat redundant when speaking of a colonizer.
4. As a nation founded on Christian-nationalist principles, South Africa saw itself as the only country on the sub-continent that could stave off the onslaught of communism.

This is also misleading of their motives, regardless of the type of nation and the political persuasion of their opponent. It is undeniable that South Africa would have been the next country and they rightly feared, regardless of the religious beliefs. That they were aligned with the West and were of strategic importance is critical to understand Western support.

--Deon Steyn 07:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any difficulty over Suidafrikaan's edits. Can't see why the POV tag has since reappeared.Phase4 17:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Koevoet did make use of SADF medics as part of the platoon structure as we did not have any of our own. This was my experience when I was there in 1983/4 anyway. Other than that there were no SADF members assigned to Koevoet at all. Most of the Casspirs were modified to carry non-original machine guns on the turret. The FN machine gun they came with was not very highly thought of. The Casspir i was assigned to had a 50 calibre Browning and 2 7.62 Browning machine guns mounted on the original (modified) turret. At least one Buffel SADF vehicle found its way into the vehicle fleet, I believe it was stolen from the army and given a complete history before the army caught on.Mpopomeni 16:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I think the POV tag should still be there -- this article seems to just be a dry discussion of tactics and glamorization of the unit. There is hardly any mention of the use of torture, desecration of bodies, disregard for civilian casualties, or any of the other well-documented atrocities. Until that is in, this is pretty blatantly slanted. -Kieran (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Eugene de Kock

His role should be mentioned.--41.19.197.105 (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe de Kock's unit was involved with Koevoet, but I suppose it's plausible that they may have collaborated. Do you have further information to that effect? -Kieran (talk)

Eugene de Kock was a Koevoet operative and quite successful too. . Vlakplaas, the unit for which he received notoriety, was not part or involved with Koevoet operationally at any level. However, the experience gained at Koevoet did help Eugene be so successful against ANC terrorists later on during Vlakplaas. Boetfaas (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Background

Is the following section (on whether South Africa was genuinely a "colonial government") really necessary? It seems to be aimed almost entirely at the fact that a sentence above had used the term "white colonial government" and it's not really written in an encylopedic tone. Why not just change the term "white colonial government" in the preceding paragraph? I don't think it's really the place for this discussion as the article is simply about Koevoet, not the finer details of how we define the South African state present at that time.

"When observing the trend of ousting "white colonial governments" we need to objectively recognize that neither the former Rhodesia nor South Africa were "colonial governments". Colonial governments in the strictest of terms were (are) governments in remote governed and controlled by a foreign country (nation) primarily based and operating from Europe therefore at the time of the "African freedom wars" such countries had to meet the requirements as set out above. The only states still maintaining that position in the 1970s were Mozambique and Angola as they were still under control of their colonial body; Portugal. However, both the governments of the former Rhodesia and South Africa had declared themselves free from colonial rule (British) when the RSA declared itself a Republic in 1961 under the leadership of HF Verwoerd and when Rhodesia issued its Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) in 1965 under Ian Smith. Recognizing this fact indicates that both the aforementioned sovereign states were , factually, not colonial states. These states had actually fought its colonial bodies in an attempt to free themselves from colonial rule. Referring to these wars as "ousting white colonial governments" are normatively incorrect as the sovereign states that "freedom fighters" fought were already "colonially set free"." Bandanamerchant (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I just started reading the article and it seemed completely out of place, of no relevance for the topic at hand. I deleted it. Horatio (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Koevoet Bias

It is extremely biased to refer to the so-called "indiscriminate brutality" of Koevoet. If this article is going to be neutral the facts and acts of Koevoet have to be investigated. The current revision is ad-hoc comments that show that the editors have not done their homework and rely solely on SWAPO/ANC/Libtard propaganda! The great majority of koevoet operators were raised in good Christian families and indiscriminate brutality does not describe the people nor the unit. Please refer to the term "war" and read up on the acts of war. It is by its very nature inhumane and brutal. The fact that this lable is only afforded to Koevoet probably means that Koevoet were better at their job as a paramilitary security force than what SWAPO was as paramilitary terror movement. After the war many SWAPO guerillas were freed from prison, alive! A great many SWAPO guerillas also joined Koevoet after being captured as they changed allegiances. Why? Would they have if they believed Koevoet to be such an indiscriminate, brutal killing machine? Absolutely NOT! No Koevoet or any member of the SA security forces captured by SWAPO during this war were ever granted the luxury of a fair trial in a court of law, they were summiraly executed! The only act of captivity was the unlawful abduction of private Johan van der Mescht. Please note that this abduction was done from inside the borders of SWA and that he was taken to Angola. Many questions are to be asked about the legality of this abduction. It is astonishing how the great many acts of the SWAPO terror i.e. murder, rape and kidnappings go unreported yet Koevoet is branded as the barbaric fighting force. Koevoet had its bad apples albeit much less than SWAPO. There are three maybe four Koevoet members who came clean and talked about their individual acts of immoral behaviour, please note "Individual" members! No SWAPO terrorist ever came clean about any of the murder, rape, kidnappings and acts of indiscriminate terror perpetrated by themselves. To be neutral, I think we should make the acts of war a talking point so we can educate the libtards on the atrocities commited by SWAPO to show that this was not a one sided affair. Another issue of bias that must be investigated is the fact that the UN also greatly contributes to the unfair bias labelled at Koevoet. For instance, in April 1989 when SWAPO, in clear violation of all international agreements and treaties invaded SWA and Koevoet had to be mobilised under the banner of the UN to stop the invasion. This careless act of war in contravention of international law is brushed aside in current UN documents as an over exageration by the SA government and in hind sight just a small misunderstanding. Boetfaas (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The statement that "It was particularly known for its indiscriminate brutality and use of torture during that conflict" is extremely biased, inaccurate and unencyclopaedic. If I had written that it would have been deleted, and I would have been banned. I strongly urge its deletion.203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, no it's not - that's a widely held view with many references to support it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"Widely held view" - That's an ad populum fallacy. However it should be noted that other parties (to the conflict?) accused Koevoet of brutality. 105.10.27.223 (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Counter argument to note of Lise Morje Howard

Koevoets have been so successful that SWAPO and its disinformation network of leftist friends have mounted a world-wide campaign to discredit them. They use the usual tactic of the left: when all else fails accuse your opponent of committing atrocities. This is the tack SWAPO and its leftist supporters have taken against koevoet. They have charged them with alleged barbarous acts against the people of Owamboland.

The propaganda conveniently ignores the fact that the success of koevoet operations depends upon the friendship and cooperation of the people of Owamboland. This fact puts the lie to such SWAPO-inspired accusations. It is the local Owambos who point out the hidden terrorist in their midst, show the policemen which tracks are the terrorists' and not the locals'. SWAPO terrorists may be misinformed, but they are not brain dead. They have learned the hard way not to wear military boots with their characteristic treads. Instead they wear civilan shoes or even go barefoot. Their tracks then are picked up through intelligence which almost always comes from the local population. If the policemen brutalized and alienated the local population, they would not volunteer such information. On the contrary, they would keep their mouth shut and avoid the police like the plague. But they don't. Instead they give them the information that has led to the failure of SWAPO's revolutionary action in Owamboland. [168] Has the South African counterinsurgency effort paid off? Did it affect the attitude of the population and win their hearts and minds? The following show that indeed it did: 1. The flow of tactical information from the people to the security forces increased (see graph); 2. After 1984, the ability of SWAPO to voluntarily recruit terrorists inside Namibia ceased; 3. SWAPO terrorists were unable to survive among the people, especially in Central Owamboland, the most densely populated part of the country, where approximately twenty-five percent of the people of the country live; 4. SWAPO clearly contracted possible areas of operation due to the inability of the terrorists to survive among the people of Kaokoland, Kavongoland and the Caprivi Strip; 5. The size and efficiency of the local security forces grew as a result of their voluntary recruitment and training in the northern areas. This has evolved to the situation, prior to the implementation of UN Resolution 435, where over seventy-two percent of the combat soldiers in the northern operational area were Namibian black and colored soldiers and policemen.Boetfaas (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

TRC report

I read with disdain the TRC report on supposed SA security forces atrocities. On the second page already where it makes a bunch of statements about the former SADF it is said that they were involved in regional conflict for 15 years and transgressed all the laws of war. This is such a fallacy it is laughable!! We, and the world, are still waiting to uncover the gas chambers, the bon fires and mass graves of the alleged war crimes committed by one of the worlds most professional armies. The one army that against all odds stopped the flow of communism in their tracks and forced the East bloc to negotiate their way out of the quack mire of a stunning defeat. Vanneman, Peter (1990). Soviet Strategy in Southern Africa: Gorbechev's Pragmatic Approach. Hoover Press Publications. ISBN 0-8179-8901-3. p.54-55

I just wonder how Tutu and Borain managed to unearth the evidence of war crimes when they were not even on the battlefield, yet the armies appossed to the might of the SADF have not uttered a single accusation of such atrocities being committed? One would think that the armies that were at the losing end of the SADF assault would be the first in line to lob war crimes accusations. Here are some statistics to show how the SADF with no more than 3000 troops overcame the East bloc in 1988. The total number of troops from the East Bloc in Angola to aid against the SADF:

USSR - 2500 East Germany - 2500 Cuba - 37 000 Angola - 80 000 SWAPO - 7000 ANC - 1200 Ex-katangan - 1400 Vanneman, Peter (1990). Soviet Strategy in Southern Africa: Gorbechev's Pragmatic Approach. Hoover Press Publications. ISBN 0-8179-8901-3. p.46

No wonder they defame the SADF, how else do you safe face after such a humiliation?

It should be noted that the TRC was a pseudo-court that essentially relied on bias and hearsay to reach its statement. With other words their documents are not a reliable source at all. Also not on Koevoet. 105.0.0.161 (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Koevoet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515082751/http://www.newera.com.na/article.php?articleid=3769 to http://www.newera.com.na/article.php?articleid=3769
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090829075311/http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/untagFT.htm to http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/untagFT.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090829075311/http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/untagFT.htm to http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/untagFT.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Koevoet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110420064235/http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/namoverview6.htm to http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/namoverview6.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• SWAPOLTin.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)